You have an excellent point. Please however consider that in the "old days" player mobility was limited as were the wages and players often didn't travel miles every week to train and play just get a few more quid. They had jobs to hold down as well.

Money used to make a difference up to a point, the richer clubs could pay a few more quid, and steal a player from neighbours. Leeds used to do this to Hunslet and Bramley.

BUT times change. The M62 allowed Hull to drain cas.fev/wakey of their best early 80's (and still Fev and Cas won the cup!) schoey was on his bike, so was Jason Robinson and now all the best juniors not in SL areas are up and off before they even get to play for their local club.

I implore everyone on here to be realistic that pre-1996 money counted but it counts so much more today, and player mobility is a massive factor. This has changed the game and sadly polarised the clubs.

I do "get it" I really do.

Yes you get it alright. But what you don't get is that if this is the case then it's wrong. You can't have a meaningful competitive game if such circumstances prevail. Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire. The best of the Championship could compete with the rest - you can't have a game where only four clubs can compete. That's what you don't seem to get Parky. Something has to be done or the game is doomed. You can't have a game where most of the supporters who are not fans of the top four are totally p i s s e d off with the way the game is run. I talk to a lot of people in my work and many of them follow the game. Most of them feel like I do. (the above does not apply to Hull where there's always been a strong core of support no matter how well or badly their teams are doing)

"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014

2. But what you don't get is that you can't have a game where only four clubs can compete.

1. Thanks but erm......

2. Again you don't listen. I've been posting that this is a problem for god knows how long. I've been trying to encourage people to debate a solution, I've been floating the idea of cutting the salary cap down and possibly increasing SL to 16 clubs for several months. Nobody yet has come out against this.

Gary Hetherington thinks the four club dominance is a problem and his club benefits the most, but he came out and still said it so all power to the lads elbow don't you think. You listening yet??

2. Again you don't listen. I've been posting that this is a problem for god knows how long. I've been trying to encourage people to debate a solution, I've been floating the idea of cutting the salary cap down and possibly increasing SL to 16 clubs for several months. Nobody yet has come out against this.

Gary Hetherington thinks the four club dominance is a problem and his club benefits the most, but he came out and still said it so all power to the lads elbow don't you think. You listening yet??

But that's not what you've been saying at all, you've been saying that the likes of Fev, 'Fax, Leigh, Barrow, Keighley, Eagles would do better getting a paper round. Forget about SL membership and merge. I'll say this again, the majority of the fans don't want mergers and don't like licensing. That's why the RFL are looking for a solution that does away with licensing. As I posted earlier in this thread, the City of Wakefield is the 12th biggest city in the UK. Bigger than Southampton, Cardiff, Coventry Southampton, Newcastle, Hull, Derby. Surely this should count for something in the RFL's deliberations.

"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014

For Featherstone as an oft argued case, the answer to money being needed to make any impact on SL was that it was appreciated Fev would need money to survive in SL hence the hailing of Mr. Nahaboo.

However there was a secondary view, one shared by Lobby at Leigh, that even if there was no money, a season in the top division would make a change to banging ones head against a glass ceiling.

I appreciate that honesty, however if we went back to auto P & R under the current system/financing (which you argue against and create the alternative) I fear that after an awful year in SL some clubs keen for SL may start to joining the ranks of the refuseniks.

Should auto P & R come back to demonstrate how bad it could be?

If it was auto P&R or as we are, then its P&R every time.

If this is the option then the Championship GF must be early August latest, the last PT team to stay up was Widnes after an August GF v Oldham allowed them a chance to recruit, something the October GF doesn't and no team can now be FT on £300k cap.

This is not the solution as the gap with top 6 should be huge for the promoted, and the drop to PT RL club destroying. If we had said to Leigh, Fev, Fax and Sheffield in August 2012 that come Feb 2013 they would have £650k central funding and they needed to compete with Cas, Widnes, Salford etc as a FT club with a £1m salary spend then we would be looking forward to two great FT comps now.

If this is the option then the Championship GF must be early August latest, the last PT team to stay up was Widnes after an August GF v Oldham allowed them a chance to recruit, something the October GF doesn't and no team can now be FT on £300k cap.

This is not the solution as the gap with top 6 should be huge for the promoted, and the drop to PT RL club destroying. If we had said to Leigh, Fev, Fax and Sheffield in August 2012 that come Feb 2013 they would have £650k central funding and they needed to compete with Cas, Widnes, Salford etc as a FT club with a £1m salary spend then we would be looking forward to two great FT comps now.

Yes, but the assumption being made is that all teams in the ten team SL will have money and access to the top players and therefore there will be no blowouts. That's a big assumption and not something which will happen and there will be blowouts.

Yes, but the assumption being made is that all teams in the ten team SL will have money and access to the top players and therefore there will be no blowouts. That's a big assumption and not something which will happen and there will be blowouts.

There will of course. Circumstance often throws up blowouts you'd never expect like London & Wire.

If we go to P&R from/to a PT league then I would have the first fixture as boxing day, then New years day. To end of July gives 31 fixture opportunities, incl Fri/Mon at Easter = 26 league 3 for CC and the start of play offs. Play offs to conclude in first 2 weeks of August, followed by NRC. This gives promoted club 2 months extra to prepare and a chance to get stuck into the transfer merry go round when players become available.

If this is the option then the Championship GF must be early August latest, the last PT team to stay up was Widnes after an August GF v Oldham allowed them a chance to recruit, something the October GF doesn't and no team can now be FT on £300k cap.

I always felt when we had P & R the big clubs put up with it because the promoted clubs were on a hiding to nothing in terms of player recruitment. That could be got over using Aussies. I'm not sure it can now.

How well Salford do with late recruitment and results may be an indicator of how annual promotion could be a poisoned chalice, hence why when people say "this is the only fair way to decide" I ask them to consider that it maybe isn't that fair....

You mean as in " let's only licnce 10 teams because there will be no blowouts" which provoked such a flurry of nensense when I disputed that assertion.

I think we should let this drop, I'm not going to go over it again. My position remains that if reducing the size of an uneven league evens out the resources better, then that league would become more competitive. The thing to do if you want to expand an uneven league is work out a way to spread the resources, like reducing the cap significantly, something you and others are agreeing on. Fair and logical points with no bias towards either 10 clubs or 16 clubs.

If we go to P&R from/to a PT league then I would have the first fixture as boxing day, then New years day. To end of July gives 31 fixture opportunities, incl Fri/Mon at Easter = 26 league 3 for CC and the start of play offs. Play offs to conclude in first 2 weeks of August, followed by NRC. This gives promoted club 2 months extra to prepare and a chance to get stuck into the transfer merry go round when players become available.

Too much winter. Again - we used to do this. We stopped doing it because it was no good.

Two tens ? That's much better. Start in March, 18 league games - excellent.

I am still getting my head around players taking 30% less to go into work just as often in a FT structure, it could work at a PT club with poor crowds who rent facilities and pay players by the game.
The structure works for Premiership RU due to all the cups with qualifying leagues they play in.

Interesting, but I'd be devastated with such a short season, and such a long break. Would fans buy into a short season or long gaps between matches?

It's be OK if we had product to fill the gap like meaningful rep games etc. We don't

Or would they pick and choose less and pack out the games??

Who says a season has to be 9 months long, may be run two 5 month seasons in a year with P & R, this could keep the interest going especially with a yo yo club and if worked correctly would produce more games and open up two transfer windows within a year.

I'm impressed with all your figures but eventhough I may fail slightly with my A,B & C's I'm wise enough to know Super League clubs just can not afford to live at the maximum and the more clubs try the more Salfords, Castlefords & Bradfords we will have, IMO the RFL are trying to structure the whole of the Rugby League with only one goal in mind and I'm not convinced thats the best goal for the entire game.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.